Nokia Phone Gets Virus Protection

wan-fu writes "After all that talk about bluetooth vulnerabilities and mobile phone virii there will finally be a mobile phone with virus protection. Nokia's 6670 smart phone will be released in October and features software from F-Secure. Perhaps this will raise the eyebrows of some other mobile phone manufacturers to step up and increase their security policies for their phones' operating systems."

Comments

Hmm

[pHatidic]

Am I missing something here?

Why not just make a phone that is secure in the first place and can't get viruses. This has to be the worst marketing ploy ever.

Re:Hmm

[MvD_Moscow]

They want to copy microsoft!

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to be the worst marketing ploy ever

Welcome to Nokia's World.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why not just make a phone that is secure in the first place and can't get viruses."

Well that's they are trying to do here. It is impossible to stop user from downloading the viruses on phone, since they might get them from the web or from friends phone via bluetooth etc.

Re:Hmm

[pyrros]

>Why not just make a phone that is secure in the first place and
>can't get viruses. This has to be the worst marketing ploy ever.

Because people want more and more features. Series 60 phones from nokia can run user-installed programs, and we all know what happens when you mix ease of installation (browse to a WAP/web page) and clueless users.

Still, the right aproach would be educating users and using some kind of sandbox model:

"pr0napplet wants to make a phone call"
[Allow] [Deny] [Always] [Never]

But I completely agree that bundling snakeoil is NOT the way to go. Moving the antivirus arms race to mobile phones will only hurt the phone market in the long run: when your PC gets 0wned, most of the time you just lose the use of your bandwidth: the spam you send does not immediately hurt you. Should your phone get 0wned, you'll probaly run a service bill in the thousands of dollars (or euros). Once word gets out, some people will be too scared to use a smartphone.

Re:Hmm

[bcmm]

Seriously though, there will always be some insecurity in computers (even running Linux, there will always be user stupidity) because in the end, the purpose of a computer is to do things for which it was not designed. It is general-purpose.

In my opinion, the purpose of a phone is to make and receive phone calls and text messages. Nokia seems to disagree with me on that point.
A phone does not really need an environment for executing third-party code at all.

Re:Hmm

[gl4ss]

you want a phone you can't install any apps on?

would you buy a computer you can't install any applications on, essentially making it virus free in the process?

(the so called virus out there now relies on _user_ installing the program he receives from a stranger. however, email has taught us that people _are_ that stupid.)

Re:Hmm

[caldfyr]

Because companies have comvinced themselves that the rush to innovate doesn't allow enough time to do quality control.

Now we have cellphone companies making miniature PDA systems saying "gee, a cellphone with windows CE... how did we NOT think of virus protection?"

At least the hammer hit them in the head before my phone went zombie and started racking up $500 dollar bills spamming viagra advertisement text messages. And now we have videophones. Imagine having your phone eat up its alread limited bandwidth by sending out miniature banner adds to VOIP numbers and email addresses, and random yahoo messenger profiles, ...

Re:Hmm

[Taladar]

Because people want more and more features.

Marketing people want people to believe they want more features.

Re:Hmm

[Val314]

>Because people want more and more features. Series 60 phones from nokia can run user-installed programs, and we all know what happens when you mix ease of installation (browse to a WAP/web page) and clueless users.

no, Companies want to sell those features, but most People just want to make phone calls.

Re:Hmm

[pyrros]

Fair point, however I DO want more features on my cellphone. I'd love an applet that lets you use your phone as a remote via IR/BT (and such an applet indeed exists for S60 phones), a GB/GBA emulator, a dice roller app for pen-paper-and-phone rpgs, and there's also another app that remotely controls emule.

Ok, I admit that a lot (most?) of people who buy an expensive phone would be better off buying last year's (month's ?) model for half the money, but some people out there actually want the blinkenlights.

(Now if only Apple gets the 6230 working with iSync...)

Re:Hmm

[pyrros]

No, if you look at s60 phones, up until recently they were not aimed at people who "just want to make phone calls" as they were rather big and kind of ugly.

They were mostly aimed at geeks/ mobile phreaks (or wannabes), people with way too much disposable income, and those who got the most expensive phone they could afford without starving to death in order to show off.

Re:Hmm

[jyristys]

Still, the right aproach would be educating users and using some kind of sandbox model: "pr0napplet wants to make a phone call" [Allow] [Deny] [Always] [Never]

Funny you should mention that, because that is pretty much exactly what new Series60 phones do. Also, the only way to get a midlet you write the full rights is to have it signed by the manufacturer of the device or the operator.

Re:Hmm

[Tim C]

No, slashdot geeks want to believe that (almost) everyone agrees with them, but in my experience that's not the case. Almost everyone I know who has a feature-filled mobile bought it specifically for one or more of those features. For example, I bought mine because of the integrated camera, bluetooth and ability to run Java apps. A coworker tried for weeks before finally being able to get the phone he wanted, based on its capabilities. He hardly ever sends text messages and doesn't make or recieve many calls, but uses the PDA features and some of the available software all the time.

Maybe the situation really is different in the US, but here in the UK at least, people genuinely want these features.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

All viruses require the user to execute the code. That is the definition of a virus. It does not run without user interaction--that is the definition of a worm.

Re:Hmm

[mobileTen]

The really sad thing here is that because allot of the manufactures have not implemented Java on the phones (J2ME) properly there are many bugs that could be exploited. It is very easy to make some phones completely freeze or crash or restart with legal Java J2ME code. I don't think this is possible with Java 2 Standard Edition on any operating system. Where is the Java Sandbox? I think it could be possible to write a virus that could make peoples phones freeze. The mobile phone companies need to do more testing of their phones before they release them. I do not think they are properly testing the phones against software that has or will be released for their phones. One majour manufacture even tries to charge Software Companies to fix the manufactures bugs on the phone or find workaround. This is not going to be the way in building consumer confidence. So sadly unless the manufacture's start improving there quality this is going to be the only way to go.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

IM starting to wonder if that is possible. Seems that any software thats networked is susceptable to malware.

Re:Hmm

[chawly]

Open Source users do it in public ? OK - but use one of these British telephone boxes ; they have virii, but they cut down on draughts

mixed metaphors

[bhny]

Perhaps we could raise the eyebrows of some editors to step up and increase their editing

Re:mixed metaphors

[benjamindees]

If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards... checkmate.

Viruses Exist on Cellular Telephones

[Anonymous Coward]

They do? Good thing I have a phone that just makes calls. Who would have thought of that nowadays?

I just want ...

[Homology]

a mobile telephone that is just that : a telephone. And I most certainly don't need a mobile telephone whose OS is so insecure that it needs an anti-virus program.

Re:I just want ...

[Vicsun]

...then buy a telephone which is just a telephone. Those who want more bells&whistles will get a phone with more bells&whistles.
I never got while people complained about today's phones being too complex; older phones, which are just that - phones, can still be purchased and can be purchased at a price lower than a 'new' phones can.

Re:I just want ...

[ImaLamer]

I'm just going to go back to a pager...

Re:I just want ...

[caldfyr]

I agree. There will always be a simple option for buyers. Personally, I like having things combined, especially when I'm in the airport. When I'm trying to pack light and don't want 40 pounds of carry-on, having a PDA that plays video, checks email, and lets me make phone calls is a godsend.

Re:I just want ...

[EvilNTUser]

Goddamnit, stop modding these posts up. They're about as insightful as saying that a computer should just be a calculator.

Re:I just want ...

[Sepherus]

That would be the case if calculators ceased to be available. I don't know about the precise situation where you are, but I'd be willing to bet it isn't particularly easy to get a phone that just phones. Calculators, on the other hand, are easy to find.

Re:I just want ...

[gl4ss]

* I'd be willing to bet it isn't particularly easy to get a phone that just phones.*

how much are you willing to bet?

a thousand dollars? a million? a fucking gazillion dollars? your whole pr0n stash? such phones that are "just phones" ARE available, go and buy yourself one if you want(hell, a bit older phones that are 'just phones' are practically free, just get a new battery and you're set).

Re:I just want ...

[Sepherus]

I must stop using that phrase, it's getting to be an annoying habit ;)
It wasn't easy to find one when I looked, but I must confess that was a while back and I didn't look everywhere. Just the more mainstream places.
For the record, I'm using an old ex-business phone which does precisely what I need and no more.

Will the phone have....

[kdougherty]

Automatic updates?? That would be interesting...

Re:Will the phone have....

[Savves]

erm.. rtfa?

quoted: The Symbian OS smart phones will provide on-device protection, similar in fashion to antivirus protection programs for PCs, with automatic over-the-air antivirus updates for a monthly fee. The final decision about pricing has yet to be made but will be finalized by the time the phone ships "some time in October," Impivaara says. According to the company's current estimates, the antivirus mobile protection license will cost about $3.62 per month, but early buyers will most likely be offered a discounted price of about $2.40 per month, Impivaara says.

i say, such a wasteful use of gprs...

Re:Will the phone have....

[va3atc]

Automatic updates?? That would be interesting...

You'll just pay an annual fee like you do for Norton/Mcafee to have updates

plus

Airtime to download them over your 1X modem(or per MB whatever they charge these days)

marketing: get people to pay for stuff they really don't need

Re:Will the phone have....

[gl4ss]

through this thing called 'the internet'?

Cool...Sorta

[Lord Kano]

I mean, it's about time that someone did something to prevent a virus outbreak before it occurs. But it's kind of sad that it took this long. Didn't the past 20 years of computer virus outbreaks give these guys SOME CLUE that they should have been thinking about security from the beginning?

LK

Re:Cool...Sorta

[Deliveranc3]

Since all phone trafic travels through their networks and all software is propreietary there is no reason for viruses to be able to spread.

Analysing and removing the packages that contain virus data could be done on the server level much more easily than at the client level, also by charging for the service they are allowing users with phones that don't have virus protection to become infected and increasing the threat of infection to their other users.

Basically they are screwing everyone in order to eventually offer virus support.

Re:Cool...Sorta

[Anonymous Coward]

analysing transferred data would be eavesdropping which is quite illegal

Re:Cool...Sorta

[t0shstah]

Except you don't know what you are talking about. This article refers to the Nokia 6670 which runs the Symbian OS which allows 3rd party applications to be written in C++ or Java and installed on the phone. Therefore, viruses are just disguised as the latest piece of neat software and some people will blindly install them, infecting their phone. These mobile viruses simply infect a single host, as yet they cannot replicate between devices and i'm not sure how they could do as even when they are online they don't have anything more than a presence through the gateway. I'm sure i'll be proven wrong in the future.

My phone flashes up a warning when installing any new software, but you are relying on people actually taking some responsibility for their devices... something which the new virus outbreaks every day proves doesn't happen.

Ok, so they could be trying to make the operating system more secure, but your assertion that they could just "analyse packages on the server level" doesn't make any sense because that simply isnt the attack vector.

Re:Cool...Sorta

[mobileTen]

Not so simple to stop viruses at the server or network. The phones can use Bluetooth and data connectors to download programs. The first virus for a phone was spread via Bluetooth. Therefore the Network is not the only place where users can download (infected) programs. And would not be a happy day if the networks went back to limiting where you could download content or software to your phone from? And would not be a happy day if the networks went back to limiting where you could download content or software to your phone from.

Re:Cool...Sorta

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that your point about proprietay software is incorrect, how is the traffic issue any different from that travelling through an ISP's network? The connection to the internet goes through a private network before getting to the PC too.

Good!

[commodoresloat]

The first time I get a phone call that says "Hi! How are you? I call you in order to have your advice! See you later! Thanks," I think I will kill someone.

Re:Good!

[darkmeridian]

The first time I get a phone call that says "Hi! How are you? I call you in order to have your advice! See you later! Thanks," I think I will kill someone.

Why? Should you be honored someone finally cares what you think?

Same old problem

[someguy456]

I don't think I know of a single person who keeps their virus definitions up to date (most of my friends use Linux, the rest aren't very computer-literate). Does anyone really think people will sit download virus updates for their frieking cell phone?

Re:Same old problem

[invisik]

I think dial-up internet users have trouble keeping their def's up to date, yes. Broadband users, however, typically leave their computer on all the time, so the automatic updating usually works. Norton Antivirus has gotten a lot smarter in catching the latest defs when it can, not on a set schedule anymore.

Will anyone update their phone? Hopefully it has automatic updates that "just run" when the phone is on and idle. Of course, that has yet to be seen.

Overall, I agree with the others--a phone should be secure enough from the get-go to not need all this overhead.

-m

Re:Same old problem

[whiteranger99x]

Well my friend, if it's possible for the phone companies to text message their ads to your phone in an instant, I'm sure these guys will find a way to update those definitions during say, 2am, much like a live update thing.

Re:Same old problem

[Anonymous Coward]

" I don't think I know of a single person who keeps their virus definitions up to date (most of my friends use Linux, the rest aren't very computer-literate)"

ok...so you know better, you know people that don't know better, and YOU and your LINUX buddies don't educate those that don't know better...seems the problem is YOU and your linux buddies not giving a flying f--- if viruses are spread or not, else your little zeelot team would EDUCATE your ignorent freinds and help stop the spread of viruses...(no, this is not intended as a linux switch boost, any os/network combo is secure if configured properly, so none of the linux-zeelot propaganda crap)

If you know how to protect systems and sit back and shake your heads at all those people that don't, instead of helping, just look in the mirror for the leading cause of virus outbreaks...

you can always point out how people should know better, but until you actualy get off your collective asses and teach people how to use the internet safely, you are a contributor to the problem, not a cure...

Re:Same old problem

[NeoSkandranon]

Most of the "average" broadband userse I know in fact turn their computers off when they're not on them. Usually because the head of household thinks they use some astronomical amount of power

The plural is "viruses."

[yet another coward]

"Virii" makes no sense. Nobody who follows any rules for making plurals would choose it.

Re:The plural is "viruses."

[bcmm]

"Virii" is a sort of internet joke, like "boxen" (boxes).
It's not really worth complaining about it.

And anyway, it sounds better...

Re:The plural is "viruses."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if you want to sound like a thirty year old virgin living in his mother's basement, it sounds much better.

Re:The plural is "viruses."

[wheany]

I think "viroise" sounds even better. I think I'll start using that instead of viruses or virii.

Re:The plural is "viruses."

[tetromino]

Who cares - no rule of English grammar applies to more than 70% of the cases it's supposed to apply to. If you start with a language that doesn't make any sense, why not develop it into even more twisted and esoteric forms?

Besides, "virii" is geek slang. It's just as valid (or invalid) as "linux boxen", "1K == 1024", or "pwn4ge".

Re:The plural is "viruses."

[Carl T]

Indeed the plural is "viruses" in English. In Swedish it's "virus", though to my whisky-soaked mind "virusar" sounds slightly better. :-D

I'll go meta-moderate now, and if I happen to come across the moderation of your post as offtopic I'll... err... do something.

Re:The plural is "viruses."

[bcmm]

How is that pronounced?

Re:The plural is "viruses."

[wheany]

Just like it's written.

A solution looking for a problem

[leathered]

Good score for the marketing people. Buy our phones and get protection against those nasty viruses. Right now the chances of your phone getting infected are practically nil, and most phone viruses have been demonstrated by AV firms themselves to help seed a market for them in the future.

Anti-Virus

[whiteranger99x]

Well, as long as I don't have to sacrifice my Britney Spears ringtones, it's ok with me...

Wait, I didn't mean Britney Spears ringtones, I meant Slayer ringtones! Yeah, rock the fuck on dudes!!!!

Re:Anti-Virus

[MtnMan1021]

Well, as long as I don't have to sacrifice my Britney Spears ringtones, it's ok with me...

they are the virus!

jbr.

Re:Anti-Virus

[whiteranger99x]

Eeeeep, that must be a trojan horse then. :-)

I'd rather see Nokia patch the OS

[tero]

The article states that there's nothing in the phone that makes it particularly susceptible to viruses and that Nokia knows of no capabilities within any of its devices that a virus might exploit. Fair enough, I suppose, but what happens when one day they release a version which has a bug in it.

The AV software subscription seems to be an monthly based fee type thingy. (Hats off to F-Secure, looks like they're right there on the bleeding edge of squeezing money out of everything).

What I'd really like to see is Nokia (and other manufacturers) taking their responsibility and offering online (or SMS based) free updates to their OS.

I don't want to be forced to subscribing into some monthly fee based bloodsucking anti-virus scheme just to be able to use my phone without having to worry about viruses turning my phone into SMS spamming zombie.

Even Microsoft releases patches every now and then, why not Nokia (and other cell phone manufacturers)?

Re:I'd rather see Nokia patch the OS

[exhilaration]

Though this isn't really practical for most people, Nokia will upgrade your firmware if you send them your phone.

So if there's a bug that's interfering with your use of the phone, it is possible to fix it.

But I wish that they let you download the firmware upgrade and install it yourself, the way Sony Ericsson has done for some of their smartphones.

Re:I'd rather see Nokia patch the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the architecture does not quite allow you to update the OS via SMS. Or let you flash it online. This is because there's the domestic operating system also, which is a closely guarded secret (hardware reasons). Of course I guess those who know can suck it out anyway but still. Flashing those phones is a pain in the ass even with all the right tools when you are developing them.

Re:I'd rather see Nokia patch the OS

[fiddlesticks]

In the UK - and I'd guess the EU, there are nokia stores

They're telco agnostic, *very* knowledgable, do stuff like upgrade firmware, swap faulty 'phones (without needing to go near your telco 'support'!), sell accessories, show off the latest phones, etc

It's nice, because I end up with 3 differing places to go for support:

* Vendor (eg carphone warehouse)
* Phone OEM (nokia)
* telco (eg o2, etc)

They each have differing support strengths for me as a consumer, but if I want a firmware fix (eg for a problem with the bluetooth stack on early 6310is), it's straight to nokia for me

Re:I'd rather see Nokia patch the OS

[EvilNTUser]

"What I'd really like to see is Nokia (and other manufacturers) taking their responsibility and offering online (or SMS based) free updates to their OS."

Good idea, but the ideal would really be that the phones would boot off anything provided by the user. Who'd worry about viruses if we could run an OS with only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years?

Re:I'd rather see Nokia patch the OS

[gl4ss]

around here you can get a firmware upgrade if while you have a cup of coffee next door.

and besides.. they don't know what they would fix, because the 'flaw' that allows these 'viruses'(or rather, a single proof of concept that was known to be possible beforehand anyways) is that the user can install anything he wants, so if there comes a file through bluetooth the user has chosen to keep on then the user can choose to install the program and the program can be of such variety that all it does is send itself to every bluetooth device around.

don't buy devices with os's that you can mess around with if you'd like the "i choose what i do with my hardware" way.

*don't install stuff from dubious sources* and you're well set(and yes in some networks there's been symbian phones that don't allow you to install just any stuff you'd like but only operator signed stuff you bought from them).

Re:I'd rather see Nokia patch the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Most phones currently don't have the ability to upgrade the firmware without going to a service center. That's why they don't patch the OS every 2 weeks. Even as it is the limited firmware updates available are a huge portion of the cost of a product. They eat directly into the companies profits.

That said, I think that some newer phones allow flashing form MMC, and so perhaps we'll see more frequent upgrades, since downloading the firmware to MMC is a lot cheaper than maintaining a service center.

related Slashdot story

[exhilaration]

Worm Developed for Nokia Series-60 Phones.

The Nokia 6670 is a Series 60 phone.

1. Fear, 2. Anti-fear, 3. Profit

[Slinky Saves the Wor]

Selling virus protection for a phone is a good way to to get money. IF you don't have it, you could be vulnerable to the most devastating, horrible virus which does all kinds of bad things, deletes your contacts, fills your calendar with crap, melts your phone and rots your brains, right? Get the virus protection and you will be safe, right?

And remember to upgrade your protection, otherwise you won't be safe, right? So let's make a deal, 9.99 e for a yearly subscription.

Now you are safe!

Until the next horrible virus... So don't ever forget to pay. OR ELSE!!

Why is this even needed?

[ShatteredDream]

How the hell does a cell phone get a virus, is it through internet connectivity or something?

Re:Why is this even needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

numpty user downloading apps from unknown sources... just as a numpty user does on a PC....

Re:Why is this even needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't. They get trojans and lots of marketing by F-Secure :-)

Re:I just want ... a multitude of devices

[Judge_Fire]

"a mobile telephone that is just that : a telephone. "

Yeah and cars are cars and planes are planes. No place for CD players, clocks, complex error prone computer systems and whatnot.

Telephony is just a feature and I can't see any particular reason why it should deserve a dedicated box.

I don't particularly want to carry a multitude of individual plastic/metal containers for each feature that I may need daily, such as a calculator, clock, camera, calendar etc.

So perhaps these damn thingies, phones, PDAs, laptops etc. should be called something new and neutral. Any ideas?

J

Plural of virus is viruses

[nyri]

Ok, I know this is nitpicking but I have to say this: The plural of "virus" is "viruses" not "virii". If you don't believe me, check your Oxford English Dictionary.
Also, you can find more information from this webpage that has an analysis of those ignorant minds who use a words like "virii": Those confused souls who write *virii are tacitly positing the existence of the non-word *virius, and declining it as though it were like filius. It's true that l/r are both linguals that sometimes get interchanged, and that f/v are just a change in voicing, but that's just reaching. *Virii is still completely silly, so don't do that; otherwise, everyone will know you're just a blathering script kiddie.

Re:Plural of virus is viruses

[Moderation abuser]

Languages evolve or die. Deal with it.

Re:Plural of virus is viruses

[festers]

Evolve? What's evolving got to do with dumbass wannabe "intellectuals" trying to look clever? There's no need to make up words when a perfectly good word already exists: viruses. There's a right and a wrong way to spell things, deal with it.

Nokia: fix the OS first

[quigonn]

I do Symbian OS programming for a living (Symbian OS is the OS that was once EPOC on Psion and now drives a number of mobile phones, including Nokia Series60/80/90 and UIQ [Sony Ericsson P800/900/910]), and I have to say, from the security aspect it's one of the worst operating systems I ever saw. It has absolutely no security measures (besides a trivial buffer overflow checker in TDesC and derived classes), no permission system, nothing. The only really secure part that I saw in it was the Java sandbox.

So, my call to Nokia: get another OS vendor, try not to use Symbian OS anymore, and switch to e.g. Linux like Motorola did: it would be a relief for a lot of programmers, and help overall security on handsets and other mobile devices of your company.

P.S.: from the theoretical point of view, Symbian OS is great: it's AFAIK the most widely deployed microkernel operating system. But theoretical greatness doesn't help you with practical security issues...

Re:Nokia: fix the OS first

[Anonymous Writer]

If you are developing applications for mobile phones, do you have to target a specific range of models using the same OS like Symbian, or can you just make mobile Java apps that run on a broad range of mobile phone models that can have systems other than Symbian?

The mobile phone applications I've looked at online only seem to support a small number of models from specific vendors. I was hoping that there would be a way of writing Java applications for mobile phones that could possibly run on all 3G mobiles.

Re:Nokia: fix the OS first

[mobileTen]

See my earlier comment about Java J2ME The Java Is not secure on the phones.....

Re:Nokia: fix the OS first

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory any phone that supports J2ME should be able to run your app. Practically you are going to encounter differences. Phones have different limits on the sizes of applications, and different bugs in their Java implementations. You can probably write it for a good deal of phones, but practically you are going to have to test on all that you claim to support.

Re:Nokia: fix the OS first

[Zebbers]

Motorola runs linux? I wish...mine runs smartphoneos by MS

Re:Nokia: fix the OS first

[quigonn]

Every specific series has its own SDK, e.g. the old Series 60 mobiles, the new Series 60 mobiles, Series 80 (Nokia Communicator), the SonyEricsson mobiles. Code that doesn't do any UI stuff is portable between them, but user interfaces have to be implemented extra for each of those models. In fact, you have totally different UI classes on the different mobile phones, e.g. Avkon on Series 60, Qikon on UIQ and Cikon on Series 80. And they are really _totally_ different.

Re:Nokia: fix the OS first

[Anonymous Writer]

Code that doesn't do any UI stuff is portable between them, but user interfaces have to be implemented extra for each of those models.

So Java MIDP doesn't have any standardised UI? The specs(PDF) have the following text...

A mobile User Interface

MIDP features a high level user interface API that shields developers from the complexity of building portable applications. This high level API enables developers to build easy to use, highly graphical and portable applications optimized for mobile information devices, and reduces development effort.

MIDP user interface functionality includes predefined screens for displaying and selecting lists, editing text, popping up alert dialogs, and adding scrolling tickers. Forms are screens that can include any number of predefined items -- images, read-only text fields, editable text fields, editable date and time fields, charts, and choice groups -- as well as any custom items added by developers to provide unique functionality and graphics. All screens and items are device-aware, with built-in support for the native display size, input and navigation capabilities. This enables developers to define a highly portable, flexible user interface that changes its layout and navigation to fully leverage each device.

It sounds like it's supposed to have a standard UI, but then again Java was supposed to be a "write once, run anywhere" programming language for computers. Have they managed to get it right for mobiles, or does the actual implementation differ from the advertised functionality the way it did for computers?

Re:Nokia: fix the OS first

[quigonn]

I wasn't talking about Java, but about native Symbian UIs.

Java is not an option on Symbian, btw, since you cannot even access the filesystem, since you're totally sandboxed when it comes to storage: all you can do is to write into a special "filestore" that is quite limited.

Java is not capable enough on Symbian OS to do serious programming (like implementing an Online Updater application similar to "Windows Update" for Symbian OS like I do it right now).

Re:Nokia: fix the OS first

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, are you in for a surprise...

Its sad

[nurb432]

Its sad we are even discussing this. There shouldnt be a concern for viruses, worms or any other exploit.

I know its a fact of digital life today, but it *shouldnt* be..

Re:I just want ... a multitude of devices

[Deorus]

Next time you get robbed around the corner and lose that all-purpose box you are carrying and you will understand why you shouldn't depend so much on those things for living.

no need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if people just didn't make a call right after sneezing, they wouldn't need virus protection...

Re:But...

[SphericalCrusher]

Heh. Can YOU even run Linux..?

hmm VMs

[linuxislandsucks]

why not just run Vms on the device..JVMs are secure..and I am sure MS.NET Vms are

Re:I just want ... a multitude of devices

[wheany]

Yeah, I'm sure the robbers don't want to inconvinience themselves by taking all of your one-purpose boxes.

automatic updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

how long till we see a worm that spreads as update for the virus protection?

Re:I just want ... a multitude of devices

[Tim C]

How is that any different to being robbed of a number of single-purpose devices? Or are you advocating that we abandon technology altogether?

And the plural of box is boxes, not boxen ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but that doesn't stop /.'ers.

What's your point? This is an informal discussion site, with lots of humorous comments.

Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now...


[Ring... ring...]

Hello?

How are you. I am back. My name is Mister Hamsi. I am seeing you. Haaaaaaaa. You must come to Turkey. I am cleaning your cell phone. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 0. Gule. Gule.

kewl

[bsdU]

thats exactly what i always wanted ... this situation that i can take care of viruses on my cellphone.
i mean it is even worst compared to computers ... because there i have somehow free choice which kind of OS hell i choose.
in the case of cellular phones i am forced depending on hardware how i am annoyed.
this is really worst.
when will there be the 1st free phone on the market
hw only where you can choose your OS

TSTF

cellular phones are annoying!

really picky, but: no such thing as _virii_

[toomanyhandles]

See here:
here
"virii" doesn't work as a plural.

Re:really picky, but: no such thing as _virii_

[k98sven]

To be kind of picky myself..
You just read a word, you understood what was meant by it, then you go on to claim that there is no such word?

Words are ultimately defined by usage. It is so. Whether 'virii' is the correct latin plural or not is kind of beside the point. Actually, there are quite a lot of words and names in english (and likely all languages) which come from that kind of linguistic confusion. There's even a name for the phenomenon, 'popular etymology' or 'folk etymology'.

Re:I just want ... a multitude of devices

[Deorus]

What I mean is that people shouldn't be so much dependent on technology as to need to carry those things around. I've always criticized wemen for carrying bags full of useless stuff, nevermind the size of the bag.

I see those innovations more as solutions in search for problems than anything else, but that maybe just me...

I can live perfectly without a PDA or a $1000 cell phone because a $50 cell phone does what I need it to. I usually don't need to write things down because my brain is already used to remember them. Using technology to replace what the brain can do itself is wrong in my opinion. Additionally, I can lose my phone without any harm, but I can't lose my brain without dying.

One must balance his dependency of technology and use it to improve his abilities, not replace them. Of course this is a personal choice with personal consequences.

And so it begins..

[Paralizer]

the battle to determine who can pack the most features on a cell phone. Seriously, is all this stuff really needed? If you want to do more than talking, get a PDA.

Attacking the wrong end of the problem.

[argent]

The first step in preventing virus attacks on computers is not to add software to scan for viruses, but to limit the capabilities of any program that interacts with untrusted objects (documents, web pages, and so on) so that there is no mechanism in the program the virus could use to launch itself as an executable or trusted script.

You're not missing anything.

[argent]

It's quite possible to build an operating system that is highly virus-resistent. You can even do it in a way that users aren't significantly affected. You'd need to occasionally select a file and explicitly install it... maybe once or twice a month you'd have to hit two or three more buttons.

The problem is that the cellular providers want cellphones they can push content to, without letting the user control the exchange. Most Verizon phones, for example, can ONLY be updated from Verizon's servers (via Get It Now), or by cracking the protection. That way they force the user to pay them for upgrades and software, and if someone *does* crack the protection they can change it no matter whether the user wants them to or not.

So the cellphone manufacturers listen to their customers, and those customers are the cellular providers... not the end user... and build phones that have a (hopefully) secure backdoor for them.

Right now this isn't a huge security problem because the phones are too wimpy. The simpler a system is, the easier it is to keep something like that secure. But as computer power increases and phones get more capability, and people EXPECT more capability even at the lower end, they'll get more complex and have more opportunities for someone nefarious to sneak in the back.

This is normal and expected, it's not an evil plot or anything... if you want a phone you control, you need to buy the phone up front. The problem is, this means secure phones will cost the end-user more money up front, so most people will go for the subsidised phones, backdoors or no.

firewall

[usrerco]

Well, regardless of the hype, I think I'm going to enable the IR firewall on my old Nokia 6190. *afixes black tape strip over top of phone*. Damn, I feel much better now.

it.slashdot.org Gets Color Protection

[Anonymous Coward]

http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/25/1 728217

jeeeezus

[zarpa11]

Just make the phone firmware so that it won't let any unauthorized programs run in the first place.

Viruses vs. Virii

[wan-fu]

When I submitted the story I chose "virii" b/c that is the accepted term for the plural noun of a computer virus. Obviously were I talking about viruses in the biological/physiological context I would have used "viruses"